Welcome! This is a forum for vegans! Non-vegans: please search the now archived Going Vegan area if you have questions about going vegan.
Please register for full access. Go to Settings>Permission Groups to see all subforums.

Re: Only 50 years left for sea fish?

According to the article:
"This is a vast piece of research, incorporating scientists from many institutions in Europe and the Americas, and drawing on four distinctly different kinds of data."

Scientists who are surprised about data they find, some times have a tendency to exaggerate, in the hope that they will be heard, I guess. Even if they do exaggerate, there has been a lot of talk about reduction of fish (eg. cod) for some years. We have link to an article suggesting that it isn't even enough fish to satisfy the Omega-3 needs UK schools children have (if they should use fish as an omega-3 source), and if you search on some of the names and sources mentioned in the article, you'll find more info.

The sad thing about exaggerating (if they do) is that lot's of people will ignore their opinions/facts, and go 'it will take 100 years, not 50: you are wrong and I will therefore ignore everything you say and refuse accept the importance of the topic'... kind of.... They won't say this, of course, but many people actually react that way.

Isn't it relatively obvious that at some point (and probably already) there won't be enough fish in the ocean to deliver as much fish as the fish industry wants us to consume?

The myth that getting Omega-3, B12 and vitamin D from fish as an ideal solution today is killed by the fact that if all the people who the fish industry want to use eat fish or use fish products would actually eat the amount of fish they suggest, the problem with getting enough fish would be a LOT bigger than it already seems to be.

It' a bit like if a rich and poor man should have a discussion about the availability of money, and the rich would tell the poor that 'everybody can be rich - you too'. This may be true or untrue, but definitely not true if actually everybody would try to or want to be rich, just because there isn't enough money.

I understand that you are skeptical, but remember that a lot of people were skeptical when they first heard that at some point we have to face that the world's oil resources aren't unlimited, and that at some point humans need to look for and rely on other energy sources.

From the article:

Historical records from coastal zones in North America, Europe and Australia also show declining yields, in step with declining species diversity; these are yields not just of fish, but of other kinds of seafood too.

Unfortunately, humans seem to believe that everything - oil, fresh air, seafood, vitamins in soil and water - is unlimited until the opposite has been proven, which may happen too late to reverse the (known and unknown) damage we have inflicted upon the earth.

I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

Fish stocks to collapse within 50 yrs

An international team of scientists says global fish stocks may be wiped out within 50 years if ocean species continue to be lost at their present rate.

The research, published in the journal Science, says if nothing is done to reverse the trend, the world's fisheries will be empty by 2048.

One of the scientists who carried out the research, Dr Boris Worm, says more action is needed to save fish stocks.

"For our own sake and for the sake of fishing communities, for the whole culture that's involved with this, we need to conserve these extremely valuable resources and do that soon and we know how to do that," he said.

"People are taking the right steps in the right directions, that just needs to be done on a much grander scale."
Dramatic decline

In an analysis of scientific data going back to the 1960s and historical records over 1,000 years, the researchers found that marine biodiversity - the variety of ocean fish, shellfish, birds, plants and micro-organisms - has declined dramatically, with 29 per cent of species already in collapse.

Extending this pattern into the future, the scientists calculated that by 2048 all species would be in collapse, which the researchers defined as having catches decline 90 per cent from the maximum catch.

This applies to all species, from mussels and clams to tuna and swordfish, said Dr Worm, lead author of the study.

Ocean mammals, including seals, killer whales and dolphins, are also affected.

"Whether we looked at tide pools or studies over the entire world's ocean, we saw the same picture emerging," he said in a statement.

"In losing species we lose the productivity and stability of entire ecosystems. I was shocked and disturbed by how consistent these trends are - beyond anything we suspected."

When ocean species collapse, it makes the ocean itself weaker and less able to recover from shocks like global climate change, he said.

The decline in marine biodiversity is largely due to over-fishing and destruction of habitat, he said in a telephone interview from Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Exploitation

He likened a diverse ocean environment to a diversified investment portfolio.

With lots of different species in the oceans, just as with lots of different kinds of investments, "You spread the risk around," he said.

"In the ocean ecosystem, we're losing a lot of the species in our stock portfolio, and by that we're losing productivity and stability. By losing stability, we're losing the ability of the system to self-repair."

"This research shows we'll have few viable fisheries by 2050," Andrew Sugden, international managing editor of Science, told reporters at a telephone news briefing. "This work also shows that it's not too late to act."

To help depleted areas rebuild, marine-life reserves and no-fishing zones need to be set up, Mr Worm and other authors of the study said. This has proven effective in places including the Georges Bank off the US Atlantic coast, he said.

With marine reserves in place, fishing near the reserves can improve as much as four-fold, he said.

Beyond the economic benefits to coastal communities where fishing is a critical industry, there are environmental benefits to rebuilding marine biodiversity, the scientists said.

Certain kinds of aquaculture, like the traditional Chinese cultivation of carp using vegetable waste, can also be beneficial, according to the scientists. However, farms that aim to raise carnivorous fish are less effective.

Last edited by flutterby; Nov 3rd, 2006 at 09:32 PM.
Reason: this was the 1st post in a similar thread

Re: Fish stocks to collapse within 50 yrs

I read this already. It's horrifying. One part of me thinks it will take something this drastic to wake people up to the degredation we are causing. It's a shame the fish, crabs, dolphins, whales, seals, octopi, squid, turtles, gulls, and such have to suffer so much first.

Re: Only 50 years left for sea fish?

The article I read on this was basically saying "isn't it sad that our grandkids may never know the taste of seafood". I was blown away that this is the only fear people have, lack of seafood. They don't seem to understand how important our oceans are to our ecological system as a whole. I see a lot harsher repercussions to this than simply a lack of seafood in the future (like there not being a future to enjoy!).

Re: Only 50 years left for sea fish?

I was talking about this with some friends the other day. How can we get others to stop this catastrophe? Some people just don't care about the fish, or the mammals and birds that depend on them. Unfortunately, I think these people need a reason that affects them or future generations directly. What can we say to those people?

"Do what you can with what you have where you are."
- Theodore Roosevelt

Re: Only 50 years left for sea fish?

I see the graph entitled "loss of seafood species"
Does that include sea weed? I eat a lot of seaweed, all imported as I don't have a local source. I am worried abou the possible pollution in it, could it be bad for me to eat a lot? I eat it most days. Surely harvesting of seaweed could be a sustainable alternative for fishing communities, as seaweed is better from clean seas?

Re: Omega-3: Not Enough Fish In The Sea

This is from the latest 'The Week' magazine.

Not so long ago, it was being hailed as an environmentally sensible way of eating white fish - a sustainable replacement for endangered cod. But now, it seems that even stocks of pollock, which is widely used in fish fingers, as well as in McDonalds fish meals, are in danger of collapsing. The US authorities have recommended an 18% reduction in next years catch in the eastern Bering Sea, which is one of the main fishing areas for US pollock fleets, but Greenpeace reckons it's not enough to avert catastrophe. "We are on the cusp of one of the largest fishery collapses in history," warned it's oceans campaign director John Hocevar, though he reckons the pollock stocks can be saved, if the quota is slashed further.

However, in their attempt to clarify the recent controversy surrounding the use of omega-3 supplements, the authors do not rule out the possibility that certain groups may benefit, and call for future studies to look more closely at this.

They conclude:

"... omega-3 PUFAs are not statistically significantly associated with major cardiovascular outcomes across various patient populations."

They suggest their findings "do not justify the use of omega-3 as a structured intervention in everyday clinical practice or guidelines supporting dietary omega-3 PUFA administration."

However, they also note that as scientists continue to do more randomized studies in this field, it would be useful to do some that look more closely at how these supplements might benefit individual risk groups, and use more refined measures such as dose, adherence and baseline intake.

In other words, while looking at all the evidence as a whole does not appear to support the idea that omega-3 PUFA supplements benefit the heart, this broad-brush picture could be missing details: there may be certain groups that do benefit, and this may also depend on factors such as the supplement dose and how long they take it for.

I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

Re: Omega-3: Not Enough Fish In The Sea

It's mind boggling when you go to a store and see hundreds of bottles of fish oil on the shelves, and then mutliply that by thousands of other stores with fish oil supplements, and consider how many fish have to be slaughtered to create each bottle of fish oil...

Re: Omega-3: Not Enough Fish In The Sea

The Uk Newspapers are reporting that there are only 100 adult Cod left in the north sea : / That fishers cannot find adult fish so they are taking the youngers ones so there are none left to breed... Eventually there will be none if we carry on. They need to give the oceans time to recover from human greed.

Re: Omega-3: Not Enough Fish In The Sea

Wow. Vastly compelling post. Had no clue the situation was so bad.... We men are wicked things =(.

The omega 3 fats are very easily eaten from nuts like flaxseed,. Personally I consume 1 teaspoon raw flax/day.

I think the best thing to wake people up is good educated repeated information. A movie by a famous actor would also help hugely! Unfortunately it's human nature not to act until crisis. Hopefully we can act before the fish are dead.